Scandinavian Studies Volume 85 Issue 3 2013 (Doi 10.5406/scanstud.85.3.0267) Anders Andrén - Places, Monuments, and Objects - The Past in Ancient Scandinavia

Places, Monuments, and Objects: The Past in Ancient Scandinavia
Author(s): Anders Andrén

Source: Scandinavian Studies, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Fall 2013), pp. 267-281
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Society for the Advancement
of Scandinavian Study
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/scanstud.85.3.0267
Accessed: 27-06-2016 11:21 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study, University of Illinois Press are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Scandinavian Studies
This content downloaded from 130.220.8.239 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:21:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Places, Monuments,
and Objects
The Past in Ancient Scandinavia
Anders Andrén
Stockholm University
M
emory clearly played an important role in ancient Scandina-
vian society, most evidently expressed in the approximately
2,300 rune stones raised from the mid-tenth century to the
early twelfth century. All of these monuments were memorials over
one or several dead persons, often commemorating their deeds and
ways of death. The sponsors of the monuments and their relations
with the dead are always mentioned in the runic texts, and sometimes
relations with other persons are mentioned as well. Through the texts,
the rune-stones created a memorial web of thousands of persons in
the late Viking Age (Andrén 2000; Sawyer 2000).
Although rune stones have been studied for four hundred years,
memory and the role of the past in the past have been seriously studied
and discussed in Scandinavian and European archaeology only in the
last three decades. It started in the 1980s, with a general critique of
the archaeological focus on chronology (Chippendale 1983; Shanks
and Tilley 1987; Burström 1989). Ever since archaeology was profes-
sionalized in the middle of the nineteenth century, chronology has
been a central part of the discipline. In fact, the ordering of things
in chronological sequences was the very means by which the first
archaeologists distinguished themselves from earlier antiquarians, who
possessed little or no idea about how objects should be dated (Trigger
2006, 121–38). During the second half of the nineteenth century and
the first half of the twentieth century, most objects became more or
less securely dated. Besides, the mid-twentieth-century dating methods
268 Scandinavian Studies
from natural sciences, such as carbon-14 dating and dendrochronol-

ogy, have made the chronological ordering of things less important in
archaeology (Baudou 2004, 278–90). Still, the chronological heritage
of the discipline meant that the past was overwhelmingly presented
in clearly delimited periods, comprising only places, monuments, and
objects constructed in these periods.
The new critique of the “chronological mind” of archaeology was
based on an emerging awareness of the complex multi-temporal char-
acter of the past, partly inspired by scholars such as Henri Bergson,
Paul Ricoeur, Pierre Nora, Jan Assmann, Walter Ong, and Paul Con-
nerton. In surveys of ancient monuments, remains from all periods were
mapped. The monuments were usually neatly presented in different
periods, but since they exist today, they must also have existed in all
preceding periods since their very construction (Chippendale 1983;
Burström 1989). For instance, Avebury is one of Britain’s famous henge
monuments from the Neolithic (fig. 1); however, it is also a medieval
parish, with its church placed just outside the ring of monolithic boul-
ders, while at the same time a modern village is partly located within the
Neolithic monument. Consequently, Avebury should not only be seen
as a Neolithic henge monument but also understood as a monument
from the past that existed and was re-used and re-interpreted through
Fig. 1. The Neolithic henge monument at Avebury, with a modern village and a medieval
church (photo by the author).
Places, Monuments, and Objects 269
millennia (Pollard and Reynolds 2002). Although chronology is still

important in archaeology, the awareness of the multi-temporal past
has clearly challenged the chronological mentality of the discipline.
Since the 1980s, the general archaeological debate on the multi-
temporal past has been broadened to many different aspects of how
humans in the past related to their own past (Gosden 1994; Olivier
1999, 2011; Bradley 2002; Van Dyke and Alcock 2003; Williams
2006; Jones 2007). In this context, I only want to highlight a few
aspects of this discussion. It is, in general, difficult to understand the
intentions behind human actions in the past. Dealing with the past
could have been a strategy for remembering, but also for re-inventing
or forgetting. Memory in early cultures is usually regarded as being
based on oral culture, but archaeologists have repeatedly emphasized
the importance of material culture as a vehicle of memory. Oral cul-
ture was never only oral, since oral traditions were usually based on
and interacting with the material world around humans, for instance,
landscapes, monuments, settlements, and objects. It is also important
to emphasize that different forms of memory existed. Some memories
related to the recent past (e.g., genealogical memories), others to the
distant past (e.g., mythical memories). Besides, some memories can
best be described as non-discursive practical memories. These include
bodily memories, memories people usually internalized as children,
for instance, how a scythe was used in hay-making or how a pot was
made from clay.
This general debate in European archaeology is clearly reflected in
studies on memory, or the past in the past, in ancient Scandinavia;
however, these investigations also include other specific features and
problems concerning northern Europe before and after the Christian-
ization. Below, I will give some examples from this ongoing debate.
The Past as Model

People were not only surrounded by remains from the past but,
in certain periods, also used the past as models. The best-known
examples come from what in Scandinavia is labeled as the Late Iron
Age (c. 550–c. 1050) but from a European perspective usually is called
the Early Middle Ages. During this period, different forms of graves,
such as large mounds, cairns, and ship-formed stone-settings, were
constructed on the basis of much older models from the Bronze Age
(c. 1700–c. 500 BC).
Fig. 2. Map of
large mounds,
with a diameter
exceeding
20 meters, in
Uppland (after
Bratt 2008,
fig. 43).
In the Mälar valley in central Sweden, about 270 large mounds,

with a diameter exceeding twenty meters, were built from the late
sixth to the tenth century (fig. 2). The largest mounds were erected
in an early phase, from the late sixth to the early eighth centuries.
Excavations show that the dead in the large mounds were usually
accompanied by objects and animals associated with an aristocratic
lifestyle, such as eating and drinking in large halls and hunting with
birds of prey. Therefore, the large mounds clearly represented a local
elite in this region (Bratt 2008). Some of the early mounds could
have been modeled on mounds in northern Sweden and Norway
from the immediately preceding periods, but others were probably
referring to much older models. The large so-called “King Björn’s
mound” at Håga (fig. 3), situated only seven kilometers south of
the “royal mounds” in Old Uppsala, was excavated in 1902–03, and
turned out to have been constructed about 1000 BC (Almgren 1905).
Consequently, old mounds, such as “King Björn’s mound,” could
have been used as a model 1500 years later, when a local elite began
to erect large mounds. These new mounds based on old models can
Fig. 3. “King Björn’s mound” at Håga in Uppland. The mound is dated to about 1000
BC (photo by the author).
be interpreted as a way for the elite to make its position legitimate,

by referring to a mythological past.
Large cairns are usually dated to the early Bronze Age (c. 1700–c.
1100 BC), but some large cairns have been dated to the Viking Age (c.
750–c. 1050), indicating how other old forms of graves were used as
models about 1700–2800 years later (Artelius 2004). In similar ways,
ship-formed stone-settings from the Late Iron Age (c. 550–c. 1050)
were modeled on ship-formed stone-settings from the Late Bronze
Age (c. 1100–c. 500 BC), which were about 1,000–2,000 years older
(Artelius 1996). An interesting aspect of the models used in the Late
Iron Age (c. 550–c. 1050) is that no monuments older than the Bronze
Age have been used as prototypes. For instance, no megaliths from
the Neolithic have been used as models in later periods. It is disputed
how this chronological distinction could be maintained so much later.
Some scholars regard the links between the Bronze Age and the Late
Iron Age as expressions of direct ritual continuity (Widholm 2006),
whereas others emphasize the use of historical models from a mythical
past (Artelius 2004).
The link between the past and certain forms of graves is quite clear
in later sources, where larger as well as smaller mounds seem to have
represented the odal rights, above all in central Sweden and in Norway.
In these basically oral societies, the mounds built of earth came to be the
tangible symbols of the property rights of the families and households
in the adjacent settlements. Still, in provincial codes from the twelfth,
thirteenth, and early fourteenth centuries, the existence of mounds
on the land of farms or villages could be used as proofs of land rights
in legal disputes (Zachrisson 1994).
Not only graves but also buildings could be constructed according to
older models. This relation to the past is most obvious in cases where
important houses were rebuilt on the same spot. In the central place of
Uppåkra in Skåne, a ritual building was built and rebuilt in the same way
eight times from about AD 200 to about 800 (Larsson and Lenntorp
2004). The unchanged character of the ritual building clearly expressed
the retrospective character of Old Norse religion (fig. 4). Another example
is a magnate farm at Sanda in Uppland, where the main hall was rebuilt
on the same place and in the same fashion from the sixth century to the
early twelfth century (Åqvist 1996). In the last phases, the form of the
building was clearly outdated, but probably important since it referred
to the past as a way of emphasizing the significance of the place.
Fig. 4. Plan of the continuously rebuilt ritual building, at Uppåkra in Skåne. Areas of
ritual use within the house are marked by dashed lines and the arrow (after Larsson
and Lenntorp 2004, fig. 23).
The Past as Place

Other ways of relating to the past included locating new graves or
houses by older remains, re-using older monuments, or remodeling
them with new elements (Hållans Stenholm 2006, 2012; Pedersen
2006; Thäte 2007). It is well-known that graves from all periods
of prehistory were re-used in many different later periods. Neolithic
monuments, such as megalithic tombs, were often re-used as burials
in later periods, in some cases as late as in the Viking Age, which is
more than 4,000 years later (Strömberg 1968). In similar ways, many
barrows from the Early Bronze Age (c. 1700–c. 1100 BC) in southern
Scandinavia contain cremation graves from the Late Bronze Age (c.
1100–c. 500 BC), as well as inhumations from the Roman Iron Age (c.
1–c. 400) and the Viking Age (c. 750–c. 1050) (Pedersen 2006; Thäte
2007). This re-use is also known during shorter intervals. The large
mounds from the Late Iron Age (c. 550–c. 1050) were often built suc-
cessively, due to recurring burials (Bratt 2008, 62–97). In other cases,
the old mounds were not re-used themselves but functioned as points
of reference for later graves. For instance, at Højrup and Højgaard
in Jutland (fig. 5), inhumation graves from the Viking Age have been
placed around mounds from the Bronze Age (Pedersen 2006).
Fig. 5. Plan of a Bronze

Age mound surrounded by
graves from the Viking Age, at
Højrup in Jutland (after
Pedersen 2006, fig. 6).
The most extensive investigation of re-uses and remodeling of

monuments has been carried out by Ann-Mari Hållans Stenholm
(2006, 2012). She has studied how graves were placed on older graves
or houses, and how houses were placed on older houses and graves at
three hundred sites in the Mälar region in central Sweden during the
Iron Age and early Middle Ages (c. 1–c. 1250). Above all, there are clear
patterns between graves from different periods. Graves were mostly
placed on older graves during the Migration Period (c. 400–c. 550)
and the Viking Age (c. 750–c. 1050). These overlays occurred above
all in burial grounds that were used for very long periods of time. The
new graves mostly covered the oldest graves or the most unique graves,
such as three-pointed stone-settings, in the burial grounds. Graves
were also placed on the site of abandoned houses. In some cases, the
oldest grave has been placed in the middle of the former house or on
the site of the former fireplace, for instance at Äs in Västmanland and
at Hässelby in Uppland (fig. 6). The location of these graves indicated
a direct link between the dead and the former dwellers of the house.
Consequently, these graves expressed a genealogical past, whereas graves
from the Viking Age overlaying much older graves probably expressed
a more mythological past (Hållans Stenholm 2006; 2012). There are
less-clear patterns regarding houses overlaying older remains, but one
interesting aspect is that dwelling houses in ordinary settlements never
overlaid older dwelling houses, in contrast to the halls in central places.
The spatial references to the past continued after the Christianization
of Scandinavia. In some cases, churches could be located on top of
older grave mounds, for instance at Hørning in Jutland and at Forsby in
Västergötland (fig. 7). In other cases, churches were placed immediately
by the side of a large barrow, for instance, at Jelling in Jutland and at
Östra Vemmenhög in Skåne. Churches could also be located on older
ritual sites, such as the church at Frösö in Jämtland, where the church
was placed on the site of an older ritual tree with deposits around the
tree (Magnell and Iregren 2010). The most common relation to the
past, however, was when churches and the churchyards were located
by the side of older burial grounds, as a kind of extension of the buri-
als (Andrén 2002; 2013). Good examples come from Hjortsberga
in Blekinge, Resmo on Öland, Dimbo in Västergötland, and Stora
Mellösa in Närke. A special case of relating to the past comes from
the Gothic cathedral at Uppsala (fig. 8). The pillars in the chancel of
the new cathedral were placed on top of old runestones, which were
placed as fundaments of the pillars (Gustavson 1986).
Fig. 6. Plan of graves overlaying

an older house, at Hässelby in
Uppland. The oldest grave (A31)
is placed by the fireplace of the
house (after Hållans Stenholm
2012, fig. 90).
These different contexts can be explained by retrospective strategies

in Old Norse religion as well as in Christianity. From a Christian point
of view, a relation to older graves was part of the Christian tradition.
Christianity can be apprehended as a kind of “grave cult,” in view of
the fundamental significance of the sacrificial death, the martyrdom,
and the cult of relics in the Christian doctrine (cf. Meckseper 1982,
200–10). Because Christianity since late Antiquity had practiced a
unique combination of burial place and cult building (Dyggve 1952),
it was natural to place churches beside older graves. This pattern is
attested in the Rhineland, where early churches from the seventh and
eighth centuries seem to have been localized in or nearby older pre-
Christian “Reihengräberfelder” (Fehring 1991, 76). A similar strategy
combining Christianity’s inherited tradition with local retrospective
traditions and flexible attitudes toward the “old customs” can pos-
sibly explain why many of the churches are located near pagan burial
grounds. A decision to place a church on or nearby a pagan ritual site
may also be explained by Christian appropriations of the important sites
Fig. 7. The Romanesque church at Forsby in Västergötland, placed on top of a pagan

grave mound (photo from Wikimedia).
Fig. 8. Plan of
rune stones placed
as fundaments
for the pillars in
the chancel of the
Gothic cathedral
in Uppsala
(after Gustavson,
fig. 2).
of the former religion. A good example is the Romanesque cathedral

at Old Uppsala (fig. 9), probably built on the site of a large hall from
the Viking Age (Andrén 2002), and surrounded by terraces of older
halls, as well as huge grave mounds and a possible thing mound. Finally,
the Christian associations with pagan ritual remains can be regarded
Fig. 9. The Romanesque cathedral at Old Uppsala and the adjacent “royal mounds”
(photo by the author).
as attempts to reconcile the two religious traditions, in ways similar

to the writings of Snorri Sturluson and Saxo Grammaticus. From this
perspective, the placing of a church and churchyard as an extension of
a pagan cemetery can be explained as an incorporation of the ancestors
and their cult into a Christian context.
Gendered Memories
In an interesting article, Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh has recently com-
pared the famous rune stone at Rök from about 800 with a well-known
female grave found at Aska from about 950 (Arwill-Nordbladh 2008).
The two sites are situated only a few kilometers away from each other,
but their relations to the past were expressed in very different ways. At
Rök, the long and partly obscure runic inscription expressed different
male memories, covering “nine ages,” in honor of a dead young man.
The inscription directly mentions that “[n]ow I tell the memories
completely” and that “[w]e tell a folk-memory” (Lönnroth 1977). At
Aska, the female memories were instead played out in different old
objects and new objects based on old models. Several of the objects can
be dated to the eighth and ninth centuries and were consequently 100
to 200 years old when they were put in the grave. Some silver pendants
from the ninth or tenth century, however, were made in the same form
as gold pendants from the third or fourth century, thereby referring
to a much more distant past about 600–700 years earlier (fig. 10).
Arwill-Nordbladh has not generalized her comparison between
Rök and Aska, but the difference between the two sites may have
more general consequences. In general, it is much easier to determine
female graves than male graves from the Viking Age, with conven-
tionally gendered objects (Bolin 2004). The background might be
that women to a much higher degree than men were commemorated
through objects, whereas men, above all, were commemorated through
oral praise and skaldic poetry. Such a gendered practice of memory
could partly explain why most rune stones were erected for men and
by men (Sawyer 2000), since oral praise was transformed into texts
on the rune stones.
Men, however, could also be remembered through certain kinds of
objects, above all, exclusive weapons. These objects were often partly
made of precious metals, and they were usually not placed in graves.
Fig. 10. Silver pendant from the ninth

or tenth century, made after a model
of a gold pendant from the third or
fourth centuries (photo by Statens
Historiska Museum, Stockholm).
Instead, the exclusive weapons were deposited in special places, espe-

cially bogs, small lakes, and rivers. These special places can be regarded
as suitable for special objects—often objects with a long history and
sometimes with a foreign origin (Lund 2009).
The Past versus Memory

The past in the past has been much discussed and studied in Scandinavian
archaeology in recent decades. It is, however, much less clear how this
discussion can relate to current studies of memory. The problem is that
the intentions behind the different ways of dealing with the past are
far from clear. For instance, placing a grave on top of an older grave
could express some form of memory, but it could also be a more or
less overt appropriation of the past or a deliberate way of forgetting
or recreating the past. Consequently, from an archaeological point of
view, issues of memory are difficult to handle, although the rune stones
clearly show that memory was important in ancient Scandinavia. The
role of the past, in a more general sense, is much easier to study and
discuss from material remains. As is clear from some of the studies
that I have referred to above, the use of the past varied through time.
In periods of changes, such as the Viking Age, the past seems to have
played a much larger role than in other periods.
In the Viking Age, when the past was so important, memorial aspects
of the past may be studied and discussed. For instance, as in the case
of graves being placed on the site of fireplaces in recently demolished
houses, a direct genealogical memory is probably being expressed. The
function of these graves closely resembles the function of rune stones.
An interesting aspect of the difference between the mostly male rune
stones and the many graves with female objects is that there may have
existed specific gendered ways of remembering in the Viking Age. Finally,
the importance of objects shows that material culture was an important
vehicle for remembering. Oral culture never existed on its own, but was
embedded in references to objects, images, monuments, and places.
Works Cited
Almgren, Oscar. 1905. Kung Björns hög och andra fornlämningar. Stockholm: Kungliga
Vitterhets, Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.
Andrén, Anders. 2000. “Re-reading Embodied Texts—An Interpretation of Rune-
stones.” Current Swedish Archaeology 8: 7–32.
———. 2002. “Platsernas betydelse. Norrön ritual och kultplatskontinuitet.” In Plats

och praxis. Studier av nordisk förkristen ritual, edited by Kristina Jennbert, Anders
Andrén, and Catharina Raudvere, 299–342. Vägar till Midgård, 2. Lund: Nordic
Academic Press.
———. 2013. “Significance of Places: The Christianization of Scandinavia from a Spatial
Point of View.” World Archaeology 45: 27–45.
Åqvist, Cecilia. 1996. “Hall och harg. Det rituella rummet.” In Religion från stenålder
till medeltid, edited by Kerstin Engdahl and Anders Kaliff, 105–20. Arkeologiska
undersökningar, Skrifter 19. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
Artelius, Tore. 1996. Långfärd och återkomst. Skeppet i bronsålderns gravar. Arkeologiska
undersökningar. Skrifter, 17. Kungsbacka: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
———. 2004. “Minnesmakarnas verkstad. Om vikingatida bruk av äldre gravar och
begravningsplatser.” In Minne och myt. Konsten att skapa det förflutna, edited by
Åsa Berggren, Stefan Arvidsson, and Ann-Mari Hållans, 99–120. Vägar till Midgård,
5. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.
Arwill-Nordbladh, Elisabeth. 2008. “Aska och Rök—om minne och materiell kultur i
nordisk vikingatid.” In Arkeologi och identitet, edited by Bodil Petersson and Peter
Skoglund, 169–88. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series altera in 8º, No. 53. Lund:
Institutionen för arkeologi och antikens historia.
Baudou, Evert. 2004. Den nordiska arkeologin—historia och tolkningar. Stockholm:
Kungliga Vitterhets, Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.
Bolin, Hans. 2004. “The Absence of Gender. Iron Age Burials in the Lake Mälaren
Area.” Current Swedish Archaeology 12: 169–85.
Bradley, Richard. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge.
Bratt, Peter. 2008. Makt uttryckt i jord och sten. Stora högar och maktstrukturer i
Mälardalen under järnåldern. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology, 46. Stockholm:
Stockholms universitet.
Burström, Mats. 1989. “Kronologi och kontext. Om samtidighetens relevans för den
arkeologiska tolkningen.” In Mänsklighet genom millennier. En vänbok till Åke Hyen-
strand, edited by Mats. Burström et al., 37–41. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
Chippendale, Christopher. 1983. Stonehenge Complete. London: Thames & Hudson.
Dyggve, Einar. 1952. “The Origin of the Urban Churchyard.” Classica et Mediaevalia
13: 147–59.
Fehring, Günther P. 1991. The Archaeology of Medieval Germany. An Introduction.
London: Routledge.
Gosden, Chris. 1994. Social Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gustavson, Helmer. 1986. “Runstenarnas Uppsala.” In Från Östra Aros till Uppsala. En
samling uppsatser kring det medeltida Uppsala, edited by Nanna Cnattingius and
Torgny Nevéus, 10–41. Uppsala Stads historia, 7. Uppsala: Historiekommittén &
Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
Hållans Stenholm, Ann-Mari. 2006. “Past Memories. Spatial Returning as Ritualized
Remembrance.” In Old Norse Religion in Long-term Perspectives. Origins, Changes,
Interactions, edited by Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert, and Catharina Raudvere,
341–45. Vägar till Midgård, 8. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.
———. 2012. Fornminnen. Det förflutnas roll i det förkristna och kristna Mälardalen.
Vägar till Midgård, 15. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.
Jones, Andrew. 2007. Memory and Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Larsson, Lars, and Karl-Magnus Lenntorp. 2004. “The Enigmatic House.” In Continuity
for Centuries. A Ceremonial Building and Its Context at Uppåkra, Southern Sweden,
edited by Lars Larsson, 3–48. Uppåkrastudier 10. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia,

Series in 8º, No. 48. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Lönnroth, Lars. 1977. “The Riddles of the Rök Stone. A Structural Approach.” Arkiv
för nordisk filologi 92: 1–57.
Lund, Julie. 2009. Åsted og vadested. Deponeringer, genstandsbiografier og rumlig struk-
turering som kilde til vikingetidens kognitive landskaber. Acta Humaniora. Oslo:
Universitetet i Oslo, Det humanistiske fakultet.
Magnell, Ola, and Elisabeth Iregren. 2010. “Veitstu hvé blóta skal? The Old Norse Blót
in the Light of Osteological Remains from Frösö Church, Jämtland, Sweden.”
Current Swedish Archaeology 18: 223–50.
Meckseper, Cord. 1982. Kleine Kunstgeschichte der deutschen Stadt im Mittelalter.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Burchgesellschaft.
Olivier, Laurent. 1999. “Duration, Memory, and the Nature of the Archaeological
Record.” In Glyfer och arkeologiska rum, edited by Anders Gustafsson and Håkan
Karlsson, 529–35. Gotarc Series A 3. Gothenburg: Department of Archaeology.
———. 2011. The Dark Abyss of Time. Archaeology and Memory. Lanham, MD: AltaMira
Press.
Pedersen, Anne. 2006. “Ancient Mounds for New Graves. An Aspect of Viking Age
Burial Customs in Southern Scandinavia.” In Old Norse Religion in Long-term
Perspectives: Origins, Changes, Interactions, edited by Anders Andrén, Kristina
Jennbert, and Catharina Raudvere, 346–53. Vägar till Midgård, 8. Lund: Nordic
Academic Press.
Pollard, Joshua, and Andrew Reynolds. 2002. Avebury: The Biography of a Landscape.
Stroud: Tempus.
Sawyer, Birgit. 2000. The Viking-Age Rune Stones: Custom and Commemoration in
Early Medieval Scandinavia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cam-
bridge: Polity Press.
Strömberg, Märta. 1968. Der Dolmen Trollasten in St. Köpinge, Schonen. Acta Archaeo-
logica Lundensia, Series in 8º, No. 7. Lund: Gleerups.
Thäte, Eva S. 2007. Monuments and Minds. Monument Re-use in Scandinavia in the
Second Half of the First Millennium AD. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in
4º, No. 27. Lund: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History.
Trigger, Bruce G. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Van Dyke, Ruth M., and Susan E. Alcock, eds. 2003. Archaeologies of Memory. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Widholm, Dag. 2006. Sacred Sites: Burial Customs in South Scandinavian Bronze and
Iron Age. Kalmar Studies in Archaeology, 1 & Lund Department of Archaeology
and Ancient History, Report Series, 95. Kalmar: Högskolan i Kalmar & Lund:
Lunds universitet.
Williams, Howard. 2006. Death and Memory in Early Medieval Britain. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zachrisson, Torun. 1994. “The Odal and Its Manifestation in the Landscape.” Current
Swedish Archaeology 2: 219–38.

Scandinavian Studies Volume 85 Issue 3 2013 (Doi 10.5406/scanstud.85.3.0267) Anders Andrén - Places, Monuments, and Objects - The Past in Ancient Scandinavia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scandinavian Studies Volume 85 Issue 3 2013 (Doi 10.5406/scanstud.85.3.0267) Anders Andrén - Places, Monuments, and Objects - The Past in Ancient Scandinavia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Places, Monuments, and Objects: The Past in Ancient Scandinavia

Author(s): Anders Andrén

from natural sciences, such as carbon-14 dating and dendrochronol-

millennia (Pollard and Reynolds 2002). Although chronology is still

The Past as Model

In the Mälar valley in central Sweden, about 270 large mounds,

be interpreted as a way for the elite to make its position legitimate,

The Past as Place

Fig. 5. Plan of a Bronze

The most extensive investigation of re-uses and remodeling of

Fig. 6. Plan of graves overlaying

These different contexts can be explained by retrospective strategies

Fig. 7. The Romanesque church at Forsby in Västergötland, placed on top of a pagan

of the former religion. A good example is the Romanesque cathedral

as attempts to reconcile the two religious traditions, in ways similar

Fig. 10. Silver pendant from the ninth

Instead, the exclusive weapons were deposited in special places, espe-

The Past versus Memory

———. 2002. “Platsernas betydelse. Norrön ritual och kultplatskontinuitet.” In Plats

edited by Lars Larsson, 3–48. Uppåkrastudier 10. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia,

You might also like